Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object

[Rolly Chambers <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>]

I join in Diane's questions. Also, what is a "controlled set of actor/role
combinations as single things"? I'm not picturing what this would look like.

Thanks,

Rolly Chambers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>
To: "'Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)'" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>;
"'Winters, Roger'" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>; "'Chambers, Rolly'"
<rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>; <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


> please see my comment.... actor/role are terms used in system
development... how do they map to current or future justice legal community
transactions or business procedures or back to the actual statutes??
thanks diane lewis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:31 PM
> To: 'Winters, Roger'; 'Chambers, Rolly'; 'Court Filing List'
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
>
>
> I tend to agree with Roger. Actor may have been unnatural to the community
> but, role as in function is very natural.
> It may be needed to have a controlled set of actor/role combinations as
> single things, but for other cases role is a very good fit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: 'Chambers, Rolly'; 'Court Filing List'
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
>
>
>
> I am still wondering why we would not try to keep it simple by agreeing
that
> a person or a thing can have a "role" appropriate to a certain context,
> including a legal case. Although I don't know how this would be modeled
> technically, I am comfortable with the notion that human beings and
things,
> animate or inanimate, can be said to play or have or be assigned "roles."
> Some might prefer calling this a "function" rather than a "role" when
> dealing with a thing, but it seems to me to amount to the same thing.
Roles
> and functions change with time and context. The point is to know which
role
> applies to the case in point and to give the person or thing the metadata
> attribute naming the role within the context of the case or, more
> particularly, of the court document in which it appears.
>
>
>
> The context of the case should show whether it makes sense to say that a
> certain role can be assigned to a person or thing. While a thing like the
> Bank of America Tower could have a role of "victim" or "evidence" or
> "plaintiff," it would make no sense to assign the Tower the role of
"judge."
>
>
>
>
> Rolly and others have called out a number of possible role names relevant
to
> court matters. Isn't the point of our work to define each distinct role
> specifically enough so we could tell in a given case who has that role?
> Wouldn't we all use the same tag for a given role, e.g., for "defense
> attorney" defined as "legal counsel for an accused person in a criminal
> matter," regardless of the title used for that role in a given place,
e.g.,
> "Defender," "Public Defender," "Mouthpiece," "Counsel for the Accused?"
>
>
>
> A person can have, but might not have a "title" that goes with a "role"
the
> person is playing. The person who has the "judicial officer" role would
> usually have a formal title, e.g., "Judge J. Jones," "Magistrate Barney
> Fife." The person who is in the role of "victim" in a criminal matter
would
> not have a formal title--although the person might be referred to as
"victim
> Winters" to distinguish him from "victim Chambers." Later in the case, it
> might be discovered that "victim Winters" is actually "perpetrator
Winters,"
> who would then start having other roles like "defendant," "convict,"
> "inmate," and "parolee," used as appropriate in context of the series of
> documents that record the proceedings and disposition of his case and
> subsequent events.)
>
>
>
> If what I'm asserting is not helpful to deciding how the JXDDS Person
Object
> relates to what we are trying to accomplish, please say so and let's move
> right along. I'm hoping, however, that we could avoid adding categories of
> metadata (e.g., "Actor" or  "Citizen") that, I suspect, might not add real
> value to our enterprise.
>
>
>
> Roger Winters
>
> Electronic Court Records Manager
>
> King County
> Department of Judicial Administration
>
> 516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
>
> Seattle, Washington 98104
>
> V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
>
> roger.winters@metrokc.gov
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: Court Filing List
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
>
>
>
> The diagram indicates that the "subclasses" of the "person" element would
be
> "citizen," "official," and "subject." These subclassifications are not
> intuitive or particularly meaningful to me as an attorney. For instance,
it
> is unclear to me what the distinction would be between a "subject" and a
> "citizen" in a court document.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, a more intuitive and meaningful set of subclasses of
> the "person" element at least for purposes of court documents would be
> "witness," "attorney," "judicial official" or "judicial officer" (for
> judges, justices, magistrates, possibly court clerks, etc.), "enforcement
> officer" or "enforcement official" (for law enforcement officers), and
> "administrative official" or "administrative officer" (for administrative
> hearing officers, administrative law judges, board members, etc.). Members
> of these subclasses are invariably individual "persons" in the context of
> court documents.
>
>
>
> I recognize that a "party" (as well as a "victim") in the context of a
court
> document can be either a "person" or an "organization." Thus, where the
> subclasses of "person" are limited to those whose members are invariably
> individuals, "person" would not include "party" or "victim" as subclasses.
>
>
>
> Rolly Chambers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Greacen
> Sent: Fri 9/20/2002 4:58 PM
> To: Court Filing List
> Cc: Mark Kindl; John Wandelt
> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
>
> Dear colleagues:
>
> I have been in further discussions with Mark Kindl and John Wandelt at
> GTRI about the person object and possible ways to accommodate Court
> Filing's need for an element that accommodates persons, organizations
> and things.
>
> They have suggested that an actor object could be created which allowed
> the use of either the person, organization, or property object.  They
> have also
> suggested that this object might be more easily understood and accepted
> if it were called "party" rather than "actor."
>
> I attach a PowerPoint diagram of the possible "actor" element that we
> have been discussing.  I would appreciate getting your comments on it.
>
> Can anyone think of another instance -- other than party -- in which we
> need to be able to accept persons and organizations or persons,
> organizations and things?  It seems to me that witnesses are invariably
> individuals, even when they are testifying as agents or officers of an
> organization.  "Party" would seem to work for contracts as well as for
> court cases.  In sum, what do you think of the idea of "party" as the
> name of the object instead of "actor?"
>
> I look forward to your ideas and suggestions.
>
> --
> John M. Greacen
> Greacen Associates, LLC.
> 18 Fairly Road
> Santa Fe, NM  87507
> 505-471-0203
>